Deus Ex: Human Revolution - How It Feels On The PC

HUD
The Deus Ex 1 toolbar is back! So cool. Whatever you pick up puts itself in the next free slot on your toolbar, and you hit the appropriate number key to switch to it. You can also hover over anything in your inventory and press a number key to assign it to that slot. And like Deus Ex, there’s a hotkey to toggle it if you’re confident you can remember what slots you put everything in. Personally, I switched stuff around a lot and preferred to keep it on.Object highlighting, etc
On the easiest mode, the game highlights interactive objects and marks the direction of your next objective on-screen. It also shows an on-screen prompt when you’re close enough to someone to do a melee takedown, telling you what to press. Thankfully, all three of these can be turned off, and they’re not even on by default on Deus Ex difficulty.

Sounds great, except for the mouse movement issue. Hopefully they'll have that ironed out before release.

Performance sounds pretty good as well.

Runs great at 1920×1200 on my 2.8GHz quad-core Q9550, 4GB RAM, and Radeon 4800. We also tried it on our puniest machine, a dual-core E6750 with 2GB of RAM and an 8800GTS. I’d describe it as functional but not pleasant – averaging around 20fps. That rig can’t run Crysis 2 at more than a slideshow even on its lowest settings, but does run Portal 2 perfectly.

1920x1200 on a Radeon 4xxx series card is better than I would have expected.

One of my biggest concerns with cross-platform games is the save system - something that isn't mentioned in the article (aside from the complaint on loading times). Has there been word if we can quicksave and save anywhere?

Originally Posted by Guhndahb
I've spoken numerous times in the past here about how important it is to me. Yes, I consider it essential and not just a discomfort to me.

Well so why?

The Spiderweb games always had a sort of console constraint by allowing only a limited number of saves. Well it's not so terrible, once the pool is filled or close to, to go in files, make a backup, and starts with a new pool.

It's more that any source of discomfort takes an exaggerate level of nuisance for players feeling.

(Sorry for the wall of text, folks, but Dasale asked. Also, I want to preface this by pointing out that I'm mentioning a multitude of different save restrictions below and am doing so haphazardly. However, my biggest grief is certainly with checkpoint-only saves. But any limitations at least irk me.)

It's an immersion factor to me, even if I appreciate how other people find manually saving something that breaks immersion.

I believe in saving often but loading as infrequently as I possibly can. This gives me the choice of what I want to replay. If I just completely borked something and die but was having fun, well I'm going to choose to replay that even if I have a newer save that lets me skip it. If I just got to the end of an unamusing sequence of the game and it crashes or lags causing me to fall in a pit, or, yes, even if I borked something, I want the option to skip it. I may not take it, because I like to challenge myself, but I want the option. This is because being forced to replay something I did not particularly enjoy is anathema to me. I have very little "playtime" and I want to make the most of it.

Being forced to replay a segment of a game is a punishment for the player, and nothing more. It certainly doesn't make sense any more than being able to reload at whatever point in time in the past that I want to makes any sense. But, in the case where I'm being punished by having to replay something without any choice in the matter, it strips my immersion in the game entirely. I just zone out for the repeats - detach from the game. And, even if I'm enjoying the game, I find replaying segments to be generally a negative experience that breaks the rhythm of the game. (Although I break that rule intentionally, as I'll mention in a bit.) That is, in part, why I only replay games years apart and I've forgotten enough of the experience. This is true of even the best games I've ever played.

Instead of a manual save breaking immersion as it does for some, for me it's my worrying when I'm going to get to the next checkpoint that breaks my immersion. (And the same goes for save rationing systems like in Hitman.) Instead of focusing on the game, I get distracted by trying to get to that next save.

Additionally, I find having saves wherever I want allows me to explore more. Checkpoint systems punish you for exploring and taking risks. I like to experiment - try things that perhaps the developer didn't intend, or simply explore a world for the sake of exploring. But those things have real risks and can end up with a grizzly death or with you stuck in the scenery or crashing your game. With my own manual save, I can now go back to just before I did something experimental and continue.

Furthermore, I like to experiment with dialogue. Dialogue systems are always, _always_ flawed, and it's exceedingly common that a dialogue choice isn't what you intended. I'm not referring to unintended consequences - those are good - those are C&C. I'm talking about when the response sounds like what you want to say, but the game writers decided it was actually completely sarcastic, or some other distortion of my expectations. Now I just had my character act in a way totally in disagreement with my role-playing. So, I want to reload from just before I started the conversation so I can rectify the game's mistake. Other times, I just want to see what would happen if I said this, even if it's not in character and not what I would allow in the true telling of events in my game. The save allows me to try what-if scenarios that I enjoy without penalty.

There was a good article (or at least mention in an article) on RPS recently regarding how checkpoint-only save systems damage exploration and experimentation, but I can't find it right now, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it echoed my thoughts well.

Lastly, I'm on-call for my job 24/7. At any moment I may have to stop. Leave the game running in the background? Sure, I do that a lot if the game allows me to alt-tab or run in a borderless window. But this doesn't fit all situations. Frequently I'll have to boot onto a different partition. Or I'll need to work straight through the night and not have time to get back into the game to get to the next checkpoint before I need sleep. Or I need all system resources available for the dev project. Again, I'm punished because I'll have to go back to whatever arbitrary point the devs chose.

I've been gaming since the early 80s and am decently competent. So my reloads are very often more about UI limitations, game (or mod) bugs, and my enjoyment of experimentation and exploration (game-world and dialogue). Checkpoints are fine so that people who do not want to be bothered with an out-of-game concept can ignore saving …as long as I ALSO have the choice to save anywhere (and the load continues from that point and not just from the last checkpoint). Some people find save-anywhere damaging because they abuse it. Well DON'T ABUSE IT. It's cheating. I personally have no problems with SP cheating. But don't complain the game is too easy or not engaging if you cheat. If you abuse the system, you better be prepared for the consequences. If you enjoy the game more because of it, well kudos.

I appreciate that you don't consider the save system to be a major factor when considering cross-platform games. But to me it's _at_least_ as important as anything else Mr. Francis explores in his article.

Checkpoint systems punish you for exploring and taking risks. I like to experiment - try things that perhaps the developer didn't intend, or simply explore a world for the sake of exploring.

I go along with what you write as I am neither in control of the time I allocate to game.

This said, two things: some people can discipline themselves into adopting a style of play that support a gaming effect. Others need a rigid structure to allow the same effect to exist. You save a lot but do not reload often. Others are unable to do that and load anytime something goes wrong or to try to get the best of every situation. This changes totally the perspective on how to get an effect to take place into a game. Withdrawing the possibility to save often forces the effect into the game, effect you might not have without that constraint.

The second thing is that exploration must be a risk, it must come with risks attached to it.

And once again, if developpers want to get a risk associated feature, considering all the other design decisions they made, saves on checkpoints are the solutions.

In exploration, risks appear essentially when the point of no return is reached, with the player being caught in a between, not enough resources to move back and maybe not enough resources to move on.

Points of no return can be thought globally. In a dungeon, entrance is A and B the exit. When the points of no return are thought globally to go from A to B, the number of saves change little to the deal as most is decided at start, at A.
If you are well prepared at the entrance of the dungeon, you might go through it.

And eventually, you might face the same punishement, being led to replay from save at the entrance or close to the entrance, either to adopt another route to the exit (changing the exploration deal) or to move back and prepare better.

Now with all the design decisions made on resources management, thinking points of no return globally has grown inappropriate. As resources no longer dwindle all along the path from A to B but go through spikes, moving from hight to low back to high, being regularly replenished along the way, the point of no return can no longer be conceived other a long path.
It is achieved by cutting the A to B path into little segments during which your resources are likely to lack, as the game has to be beat the replenishing rate.

Both configurations are here to associate risk to exploration as it must be. But considering the developpment in other areas, check points saves are the solution to adopt.

All this to say that the options taken by developpers determine the availability of saves so dont expect otherwise.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Dont forget: poor graphical implementation of the enhancement capacity in the list. Much more superficial cause…

Lol, nice joke.

I'm playing Avadon, played some Avernum I wonder what RPG you played, not much that is obvious, but clearly no indie one with graphic quality bellow the current average.

That you put that at same level to a no jump no buy is saying a lot. But at some point it's not possible to argue more, if people stick think no jump no buy, there is nothing more to do against such superficiality.

But yeah I still haven't read last two long posts of this thread. Explanation: I'm trying the apply the CA technicals, comment posts I don't read, soon I'll reach next grade level to comment games I haven't played.

Actually, you apply your own technicals as you are the one who does not read comments.

And yes, it says a lot and tells about my priorities when it comes to the RPG genre.

And to the other questions, it is a sound one. More and more, I wonder myself what RPGs I've recently played as RPG is a dying genre. Save pushing by games that deserve to be categorized as RPGs less and less into the RPG genre, a very valid question.

@ChienAboyeur: You make good points and I really disagree with none of them. And I fully appreciate that what works for me doesn't for everyone. But the save systems that I like are hardly a rarity. They've worked well for decades.

I see two issues: One is technical, the other is game design. You address well the game design side, and if that's all there were then, without question, designers should implement both systems so people have a choice. The technical side is where that gets sticky. Obviously save-anywhere is more complex to implement. But it was so common with PC games in the past where resources are plentiful. While Desale was right that some of the classics had restricted saves, they were far from the majority (on PCs - the flip is true for consoles). I believe the real blossoming of restricted save systems came from the resource limitations of consoles. It's my opinion that that led to the mainstream consumer adopting that as the norm. And that was fine until the cross-platform craze, where the mainstream gamer wins out almost every time.

But that can be said for many of the game mechanics to which we old-schoolers cling. I will fight tooth and nail for save-anywhere because it is critical to my enjoyment of one of my favorite pastimes.

I don't think it's futile, though. PC gamers as a whole tend to support gamer choice when it comes to saving. It's intriguing comparing comments on save systems on RPS, which has a strong PC contingent, and Kotaku, which is a generalist but leans console.

As for your remark on risk, I agree, although it actually wraps around to your initial point. Just because I take a risk with experimentation or exploration does not mean I reload when it fails. I just like to have the choice. As I mentioned, I see no difference as far as realism between being able to pick what point in time I reload. Reloading from a checkpoint is just as "silly" as picking my own spot. It's just that checkpoints are about penalty, and I don't want to be penalized in my free time - at least not without my consent.

And the risk needs to be in-game risk - but far too often going off the beaten trail in a game leads to undiscovered bugs or role-playing problems where the writers didn't account for your actions. I absolutely should be able to reload right before that happened since it was through no fault of mine that my experience got derailed.

@Desale: It wasn't _that_ long. But save systems are not superficial - at least not to me. I feel I defend that well in my post, which I hope you read, but I'll elaborate a bit. Save systems are out-of-character, of course, but that's a very different thing from superficial. If any game-play mechanic impedes my enjoyment of a game as much as checkpoint systems do, I'm going to speak out against them. All I am is a proponent of gamer choice. See my other "dissertations" here on the Watch regarding difficulty settings for more evidence of this. Or note my passion for modding and even hacking (SP only of course) when a game can be improved by it.

I think this is a apt analogy for how I feel about this: Try go playing a really good early 80s game that you never played before. Without the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia benefiting the experience, you'll likely find the user-interface gets in the way quite a lot. It may still be a great game but it's diminished, perhaps to the point of being unplayable, by that user interface. Well that's how restricted saves are for me. It's an out-of-character mechanic that deeply and negatively impinges on my in-character enjoyment.

How important quick-saves are depends on how open the game is. I like checkpoints for linear games and quick-saves for open-world games. I would assume DX3 is like DX1 with several smaller areas that are open for exploration and deciding what you want to do and when, which tells me there should be quick-saves.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
How important quick-saves are depends on how open the game is. I like checkpoints for linear games and quick-saves for open-world games. I would assume DX3 is like DX1 with several smaller areas that are open for exploration and deciding what you want to do and when, which tells me there should be quick-saves.

Yes, it may depend on the game how important quicksaves and limitless saves are but there is no reason whatsoever not to implement them in every game. What people tend to forget is that limited saves were not a design choice but a solution to the problem of very limited memory in older game consoles and computers. But since every hand held device has a nearly limitless amount of memory (and lets not even start with PCs) there is no reason not to have these options. I like to save. I like to play a game for five minutes and save. And so on.

And no, that has nothing to do with so called design choices by various designers. Movie directors also make their movies to be watched in one session and not in ten. And yet that's exactly what I can do. My BD player even has a memory chip so that I can interrupt a movie, turn the thing off and start watching again in three weeks and the same part of the movie I stopped.

Originally Posted by Guhndahb
I just like to have the choice. As I mentioned, I see no difference as far as realism between being able to pick what point in time I reload. Reloading from a checkpoint is just as "silly" as picking my own spot.

It makes little different difference because your management of infinite saves introduces little difference. Check point saves limit the opportunity of reloading, an achievement you perform alone as you limit yourself the number of times you reload.
Little difference.

From a developper's perspective, it is another story. One has to deal with another type of customers, players who want to exploit every feature in the game, to milk the best of any situation, think they are creative doing so and finally, if the developpers want the game to be played otherwise, they should not have introduced a feature allowing an exploit.

It changes all: a game with rolling dice levelling up system. Players who dont often reload do not use the reload system to get the optimal build to their character. They take the dice as it is casted.
Others reload everytime they level up until they get the best dice result.

The latter finds the game challenging, the former says it is a piece of cake. The developper says not to reload until getting the best dice result. The exploiters say that it is all the developper's fault, that the developper is responsible for their behaviour spoiling the challenge in the game, that they are creative, if the developper does not want the game to be played this way, then the developper should forbid it.

Conclusion: the developper restricts the access to the save opportunity. From his point of view, it makes little difference now.

Players who did not reload lose little reload capacity in terms of numbers. And exploiters are happy as they have a challenging game.

And a toggle option, infinite save/limited save/no save wont make a difference as it is only another feature to exploit.

This is basically how some players lost their freedom to save whenever they want, wherever they want.

Originally Posted by Roi Danton
Yes, it may depend on the game how important quicksaves and limitless saves are but there is no reason whatsoever not to implement them in every game. What people tend to forget is that limited saves were not a design choice but a solution to the problem of very limited memory in older game consoles and computers. But since every hand held device has a nearly limitless amount of memory (and lets not even start with PCs) there is no reason not to have these options. I like to save. I like to play a game for five minutes and save. And so on.

And no, that has nothing to do with so called design choices by various designers. Movie directors also make their movies to be watched in one session and not in ten. And yet that's exactly what I can do. My BD player even has a memory chip so that I can interrupt a movie, turn the thing off and start watching again in three weeks and the same part of the movie I stopped.

It's true that, in the past, it was often a limitation due to hardware. But, today at least, it's often used as a design crutch - to artificially increase longevity.

I find that a checkpoint system ruins the flow of a game, and makes the "trial and error" aspect painful to the player. It makes the player less willing to experiment and tends to make him focus on the "safe route" - because we don't want to risk repetition.

I understand that it can also enhance tension - and enforce careful play, both of which are good things. However, I don't like it when the source of tension is meta-gaming - as we don't fear dying because the beat is nasty, but because we don't want to replay the same section again. That's artificial.

So, from a design point of view - it's really about what's more important. That kind of tension - or an experience that supports experimentation and exploration.

In DE3 - I think it's obviously the latter - and so I hope the designers agree.

Also, and I don't know if it's just me - but I actually think that checkpoints ruin immersion MORE than being able to quicksave. There's nothing more artificial than a big machine that stands ready to "save your life" - and that you have to backtrack to, if you want to save before some big fight. It's totally counterproductive in many games - like recently in Dead Space. I mean, the whole game is about immersion (ok, maybe not - but to me it is) - and yet they have these lifesaving machines everywhere, that I have to find or backtrack to, to save up when I've upgraded or whatever.

Pushing "F5" is much more natural and unintrusive to the experience. But I realise it's incredibly "unrealistic" and, unlike checkpoints, tends to inspire CARELESS play instead.

So, I don't think there's a way to definitively prove what's best - I just know that I ALWAYS prefer quicksaves.